Better-balanced-pair inequality conjecture for the cd-index

From papers

Let (m1,n1)(m_1,n_1) and (m2,n2)(m_2,n_2) be pairs of non-negative integers, where (m1,n1)(m_1,n_1) is strictly better balanced than (m2,n2)(m_2,n_2), meaning that the first pair is strictly closer to balance than the second in the sense used in the paper. Let LL, MM, and NN be lists. Better-balanced-pair inequality conjecture. Then

β(M,m1,L,n1,N)>β(M,m2,L,n2,N).\beta(M,m_1,L,n_1,N)>\beta(M,m_2,L,n_2,N).

This extends the preceding pairwise comparison to arbitrary lists inserted between and around the two entries; the source gives no resolution.

Progress summary

Open

The conjecture remains open: its original partial results are known, but no verified proof or counterexample has appeared in the retrieved literature.

Mahajan formulated this cdcd-analogue of Gessel’s balance conjecture in his study of Boolean-lattice cdcd-coefficients. The arbitrary-list inequality is recorded as Conjecture 4, with only partial theorems reported.

Known results

  • Mahajan (2002): established partial balance inequalities in Theorems 4 and 5.
  • Mahajan (2002): proved related reverse-unimodality inequalities and characterized the maximum coefficient in each degree.
  • Ehrenborg and Readdy survey (2019): summarizes these results but reports no resolution of the arbitrary-list conjecture.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture remains unsettled; the literature records Mahajan’s partial results, but no verified proof or disproof of the stated arbitrary-list inequality.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Swapneel Mahajan, “The cd-index of the Boolean lattice”, arXiv:math/0211390 (2002).

Solutions 1

Counterexample

The conjecture is false for cdcd-monomials of degree 2525.

Use the list notation

(a1,,ar)=ca1dca2ddcar,(a_1,\ldots,a_r)=c^{a_1}dc^{a_2}d\cdots dc^{a_r},

and take

M=(0),L=(0,7),N=,M=(0),\qquad L=(0,7),\qquad N=\varnothing,

together with

(m1,n1)=(5,5),(m2,n2)=(4,6).(m_1,n_1)=(5,5),\qquad(m_2,n_2)=(4,6).

Both pairs have sum 1010, and

55=0<2=46,|5-5|=0<2=|4-6|,

so (5,5)(5,5) is strictly better balanced than (4,6)(4,6). The conjecture therefore predicts

β(0,5,0,7,5)>β(0,4,0,7,6).(1)\beta(0,5,0,7,5)>\beta(0,4,0,7,6). \tag{1}

The coefficients can be computed directly from the established Lemmas 3.2 and 4.4 of the source. For every nonempty list a=(a1,,ar)a=(a_1,\ldots,a_r), these give

β(a)=1ir\ai>0β(a1,,ai1,,ar)+i=1r1β(a1,,ai1,ai+ai+1+1,ai+2,,ar),(2)\begin{aligned} \beta(a) ={}&\sum_{\substack{1\leq i\leq r\a_i>0}} \beta(a_1,\ldots,a_i-1,\ldots,a_r)\\ &+\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \beta(a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1},a_i+a_{i+1}+1, a_{i+2},\ldots,a_r), \end{aligned} \tag{2}

with initial condition β((0))=1\beta((0))=1. Every list on the right has degree one less than aa, where

deg(a)=iai+2(r1),\deg(a)=\sum_i a_i+2(r-1),

so (2) is a finite exact integer recursion.

Evaluating (2) gives

β(0,5,0,7,5)=1,287,894,857,340,\beta(0,5,0,7,5)=1{,}287{,}894{,}857{,}340,

whereas

β(0,4,0,7,6)=1,288,645,806,880.\beta(0,4,0,7,6)=1{,}288{,}645{,}806{,}880.

Thus

β(0,5,0,7,5)β(0,4,0,7,6)=750,949,540<0,\beta(0,5,0,7,5)-\beta(0,4,0,7,6) =-750{,}949{,}540<0,

which is the opposite of (1).

As an independent coefficient recurrence, Proposition 2 gives

Ψ(Br+1)=Ψ(Br)c+D(Ψ(Br)),D(c)=d,D(d)=cd,\Psi(B_{r+1})=\Psi(B_r)c+D(\Psi(B_r)), \qquad D(c)=d,\quad D(d)=cd,

with DD a derivation. Therefore b()=1b(\varnothing)=1 and

b(w)=1{w ends in c}b(w with its last c removed)+d-positionsb(w with that d replaced by c)+cd-substringsb(w with that cd replaced by d).b(w) =\mathbf1_{\{w\text{ ends in }c\}}b(w\text{ with its last }c\text{ removed}) +\sum_{\text{$d$-positions}}b(w\text{ with that }d\text{ replaced by }c) +\sum_{\text{$cd$-substrings}}b(w\text{ with that }cd\text{ replaced by }d).

This separate recursion yields the same two values. Hence the more balanced pair gives a strictly smaller Boolean-lattice cdcd-coefficient, disproving the conjecture.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·